Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

[tres borrachos]

Don't hold your breath, because there is no such thing as an honest ANYTHING when it comes to politicians.

So you agree Trump isn't honest. But I thought he wasn't a politician? Isn't that why you guys supported him? He's an outsider, sent to DC to shake things up, wreck the establishment, and drain the swamp.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you concede that at least some actions which happen prior to someone taking office could fall under the category of emoluments?

We're now just talking about the duration of that window of relevance?

You say that the window is larger than one minute, but smaller than 7 years?

The problem, in this case, is that the lack of evidence that a crime has been committed is being used as "probable cause" to search for evidence of a crime. Since we don't know if Trump has been cruel to animals then that lack of evidence should be used to investigate Trump for animal cruelty.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So do all politicians what is your point?

Not on a scale comparable to Trump. He is a prolific, extreme even, liar. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

that is calling someone a liar.

no there is no legit reason.
the judge is an obama appointee. he should have recused himself if he was not going to rule according to law
and fish a reason to allow it.

There is no evidence by anyone that trump has done anything illegal.
this is another fishing expedition. because the losers lost on the mueller report.

now they think they can violate constitutional protections to go fishing to try and find something
that is outside their preview to do.

A lot of claims made with no supporting evidence. At least you’re consistent.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The same way police and prosecutors do - get a warrant based on probable cause.

So, Congress is allowed to investigate?
They just need to follow due process?

And due process in this instance is something other than what Congress is doing?

Simply being POTUS, or Trump, is not cause to investigate to see if some crime might have been committed. What appears to be the case, is that since Trump made some folks (who just happen to be congressional demorats?) mad by making pro-Putin comments then he must be a criminal. The problem is that you don't start an investigation by identifying a suspect and then investigate them to see what crime they just might have committed.

You think that Trump's pro-Putin penchant is the only reason why Congress is monitoring the PotUS's compliance with the Foreign emoluments clause?

If there were some other reason besides Trump's pro-Putin penchant, would you be okay with congress monitoring the PotUS's compliance with the Foreign emoluments clause?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, Congress is allowed to investigate?
They just need to follow due process?

And due process in this instance is something other than what Congress is doing?


You think that Trump's pro-Putin penchant is the only reason why Congress is monitoring the PotUS's compliance with the Foreign emoluments clause?

If there were some other reason besides Trump's pro-Putin penchant, would you be okay with congress monitoring the PotUS's compliance with the Foreign emoluments clause?

Yep, first they alleged RUSSIAN collusion and then, over 2 years later, decided that (past?) emoluments just might be the real "Trump crime". It is not congress's job to "monitor" Trump or to allege "possible criminal motives" for executive decisions which they happen to dislike.

 

[tres borrachos]

I would tend to agree. At least at this point. It remains to be seen what happens next.

Mazar left an interesting "door" in the ruling:

Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records - POLITICO

“...it is not the court’s role to decipher whether Congress’s true purpose in pursuing an investigation is to aid legislation or something more sinister such as exacting political retribution,” Mehta wrote.​

The operative is: "It is not the court's role to decipher...."


Maybe not Mazar's court, but another court could.

What on Earth do you keep talking about? Mazars is the accounting firm. The judge's name is Mehta.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What if LEOs were able to charge people with crimes but were unable to conduct investigations?

LEO’s arrest, prosecutors charge.

 

[BlueTex]

The problem, in this case, is that the lack of evidence that a crime has been committed is being used as "probable cause" to search for evidence of a crime. Since we don't know if Trump has been cruel to animals then that lack of evidence should be used to investigate Trump for animal cruelty.

Why would congress need probable cause for proposed legislation? Congress can easily say they are providing oversight to the IRS's policy of auditing presidents. Does congress have oversight responsibility?

 

[BlueTex]

What on Earth do you keep talking about? Mazars is the accounting firm. The judge's name is Mahat.

It's actually Mehta but the rest of your post is on target...

Amit Mehta - Wikipedia

 

[tres borrachos]

What, exactly, is that "legitimate reason"?

The Mueller Report. The testimonies of some people, including Cohen, that Trump has committed fraud on his finances. The ongoing outside investigations into suspected fraud in his Foundation and some of his businesses.

 

[tres borrachos]

It's actually Mehta but the rest of your post is on target...

Amit Mehta - Wikipedia

Goddamn spell check!

Yes that was my point. Ocean repeatedly referred to Mazars as the judge. I think it's in his interest to actually read so he knows what he's posting about.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why would congress need probable cause for proposed legislation? Congress can easily say they are providing oversight to the IRS's policy of auditing presidents. Does congress have oversight responsibility?

They (demorats in congress) can easily say anything, politicians lie on a regular basis. Many see this as simply politics - you want to pretend otherwise and I certainly can't stop you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It is not congress's job to "monitor" Trump...

Which branch of govt does have the job of investigating and monitoring the Executive Branch?

1. The Executive Branch
2. The Judicial Branch
3. The Legislative Branch

Is it the branch of government which is responsible for charging members of the Executive Branch with high crimes and misdemeanors?

If not, how should the branch of government which is responsible for charging members of the Executive Branch with high crimes and misdemeanors go about making a decision about bringing or declining to bring charges if they lack investigatory powers?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yep, first they alleged RUSSIAN collusion and then, over 2 years later, decided that (past?) emoluments just might be the real "Trump crime". It is not congress's job to "monitor" Trump or to allege "possible criminal motives" for executive decisions which they happen to dislike.

If there were some other reason besides Trump's pro-Putin penchant, would you be okay with congress monitoring the PotUS's compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clause?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Mueller Report. The testimonies of some people, including Cohen, that Trump has committed fraud on his finances. The ongoing outside investigations into suspected fraud in his Foundation and some of his businesses.

Great idea, let's use hearsay (by convicted liars?) as just cause to investigate the Clintons forever too.

 

[BlueTex]

They (demorats in congress) can easily say anything, politicians lie on a regular basis. Many see this as simply politics - you want to pretend otherwise and I certainly can't stop you.

How would you propose a court determine if a legislative purpose was legitimate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Great idea, let's use hearsay (by convicted liars?) as just cause to investigate the Clintons forever too.

The Clintons are still being investigated. You didn't know that?

Something that comes from a person's personal attorney who worked with him for over a decade is "hearsay" now? In the world I grew up in, that would be something most people would take seriously.

I sense that you don't want Congress to investigate Trump.

 

[NWRatCon]

I refer you to your fraudulent liar-in-chief and his 'university', for example. I wouldn't mention 'honesty' when Trump is being discussed; he doesn't understand the concept. By the way, did you get the 10% tax cut he promised last September, and how about all the electoral promises he made, none of which he kept? Trump is about as honest as a Gambino.

I'd say a Corleone. His story is fictional too.

 

[Trump]

The Clintons are still being investigated. You didn't know that?

Something that comes from a person's personal attorney who worked with him for over a decade is "hearsay" now? In the world I grew up in, that would be something most people would take seriously.

I sense that you don't want Congress to investigate Trump.

huh.....

- 675: The number of days from when Mueller was appointed to the day he turned in his report to Barr.

- 34: people indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation, including Russian nationals and several former Trump aides and advisors.

- 19: lawyers who were employed by the special counsel's office, according to a letter Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.

- About 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff that assisted with the investigation.

- More than 2,800 subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel's office, that's an average of at least four per day.

- Nearly 500 search warrants executed.

- More than 230 orders for communication records.

- Nearly 50 authorized orders for the use of pen registers, a tool that lets the government know who someone is communicating with and when, but not what they said.

- 13 evidence requests to foreign governments

- 500 witnesses interviewed

- $25 millionin posted costs as of February

 

[apdst]

The Mueller Report. The testimonies of some people, including Cohen, that Trump has committed fraud on his finances. The ongoing outside investigations into suspected fraud in his Foundation and some of his businesses.

The same Mueller Report that didn't find anything? That Mueller report?

 

[SCrider]

The same Mueller Report that didn't find anything? That Mueller report?

The Mueller report that spawned 12 more current investigations?The one the outlined 10 instances of possible obstruction? That one?

 

[What if...?]

You are making a false equivalency, along the lines of 'hey, the Jews weren't perfect in WWII either'. The propaganda industry is almost entirely funded by and for the benefit of the right-wing interests.

Problem with your solution is the 'free speech' right. How do you 'regulate' them without it becoming state tyranny to say what 'ideas' are allowed? We need a more nuanced solution, and the key is to both reduce inequality and the now constitutional right for unlimited money in politics. Money is NOT speech.

It can be definited by technique.

I'll have to look it up but some countries license practitioners and forbid certain techniques.

So it isn't the content its the tricks. Now what they're saying but the cynical psychological and cognitive manipulation.

And the left isn't innocent. George lakoff tried to teach liberals how to counter conservative "framing". The democrats however were only interested in learning how to do it themselves. So he gave up.

It would be helpful to simply educate the people about this technology. But the politicians won't do it because their campaigns depend on it. The media won't do it because their advertisers depend on these techniques.

But until we address these industries nothing is going to get better.

And you're never going to convince me that the founders wouldn't have written the imdirwt amendment differently had they realized that "speech" would be the primary tool by which every modern tyranny established and maintain(ed)s their tyrannies.

Both Hitler and Goebbels are on record stating that the Reich could never have existed without what they learned about propaganda from the Soviet.

 

[tres borrachos]

The same Mueller Report that didn't find anything? That Mueller report?

Yes, the one that couldn't exonerate him of obstruction and also pointed out so many other things of concern to patriotic Americans.

 

[roughdraft274]

actually he does. that is called due process.
he 100% has the right just as any other citizen to fight an unlawful act by congress.

actually it is 100% right and granted by the constitution.

You are confusing the issue. He has a right to contest congress's actions. He has used this right and he lost. Unless another court comes in and issues something to say that this case will be reviewed etc. then he has no right to stop the handing over of these materials from a private company to congress. He had his day in court. A ruling was made. He can appeal, but that doesn't mean that the first ruling just never happened.